IN general support of National columnist Michael Fry, who on Tuesday made a case for his indyref Wealthy Nation campaign, I think that us Scots engaging in such miserable talk about ourselves is akin to the national habit of badmouthing the weather (Nationalism flourishes when we feel good about Scotland, The National, March 20). But a walk on any shopping street or sitting on a bus and seeing the amount of smartphones being held between ear and mouth or having their screens activated by finger nails readily dismisses the idea of impoverishment in a meaningful sense.

Food banks don’t erase a probability that two cars instead of one is the average family situation. It is also true that addictions such as alcohol, drugs, smoking, and gambling permeate many parts of Scotland, and possibly are more present in less affluent areas (though this is debatable, because it is well enough known and maybe obvious that affluence can conceal these addictions). After all, money is a trademark of such addictions – as some might say it costs a fortune to buy a packet of 20 cigarettes today!

With free bus passes for senior citizens, free prescriptions, free education from infancy to higher education, free library books etc, there is every chance we take wealth for granted, yet the peculiarity of this is that we mostly focus on what we might lack and not on what we surely don’t lack.

It is something of an enigma. Maybe Mr Fry should consider that a Wealthy Nation campaign is misguided and Rikki Fulton’s portrayal of the Reverend I M Jolly is the Scots psyche at which to aim an appeal if you want to garner votes. The bottle half empty is the winning strategy.

Ian Johnstone
Peterhead

I WONDER sometimes about Michael Fry and his understanding of the people of Scotland. He confesses that during the 2014 referendum year he formed an organisation called the “Wealthy Nation” with the purpose of persuading the wealthy people of Scotland to vote Yes. These were to be found, as he put it, in the plush big “hooses” situated in the “leafy suburbs of a bonny wee Burgh”. All this in opposition to the rest of us, whom he describes as “surrogate Marxists pursuing a class struggle”.

He also suggest that the burgeoning middle class is now bigger than the traditional working class which just happens to be in decline. He says the 2014 campaign was doomed to failure because it relied solely on the “Scottish proletariat” to carry it out, (except, that is, for Michael Fry’s “Wealthy Nation” organisation). It gets worse. Fry goes on to say that, three decades after the death of socialism (according to him), it’s still not yet time for the “Scottish proletariat” to abandon the class struggle. That is if the “gullible reader is tempted to conclude this”.

Michael Fry is bent on insulting the Scottish voter and independence campaigner with his snobbish Tory-like suggestions and conclusions because, aye, he knows better.

He further goes on to insult the Scottish Government. Being the source of all information, he has accused the SNP of “navel gazing”, and the government of “feeding off its own fantasies because, short of independence, Scotland has little contact with reality”. Adding insult to injury! Fry also suggests that English tourists come to visit Scotland to watch as we “wallow in our own self pity”. He goes on: “our present government prefers, what we [himself that is] might call the miserabilist position, harping on about how all is for the worst of all possible Scotlands.”

If he has such a low opinion of Scotland, its people and its government then why is he still living here?

Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife

WHY the current outrage over the “betrayal” of Scottish fishermen? Was it not obvious from the multiple pronouncements over the last many months? For example, Michael Gove: “Danish fishermen will still be able to fish in Scottish waters”, or Theresa May: “the deal must not disadvantage EU fishermen”. With so much experience of Westminster lies and broken promises in the past, and having been sold out so often over more than 40 years, why on earth did the fishermen have any faith in the current Tories to deliver what they hoped for?

Does this fiasco not amply indicate the real reasons behind the attempt in the Withdrawal Bill to retain 25 of what should be devolved powers returning from the EU? Even if it is agreed that these will eventually reach Edinburgh and Cardiff, as long as they remain during the implementation period in the control of Westminster they can be used as bargaining chips, as they have been this week, in efforts to gain preferential deals for “more important” sectors such as London finance. A similar scenario applies to agriculture too. We know that the EU gave Westminster a pot of extra cash specifically for Scottish hill farmers to bring them up to the level of their continental equals, but Westminster has allocated only 20 per cent of this money as intended and has kept the other 80 per cent. Talk of the need for a UK wide policy to protect the internal market is only a smokescreen. That market has operated fine for 40 plus years while Westminster has had no input, so what would change? Obviously, the real purpose in trying to take control, even temporarily, of these devolved powers is to ensure that a single level of support can be decided for all UK farmers. Thus in future, Scottish farmers, however poor their land, will receive only as much support as is thought suitable for the far greater number with far more productive, arable land in England.

Fishermen voted Tory because of the promises and because of the Scottish Government’s declared interest in retaining EU membership. Surely representing ourselves and our own Scottish interests in Europe would achieve a better long-term result than being voiceless and used as bargaining fodder? As Brexit approaches, farmers too – and other sectors affected by the 25 disputed powers – will learn to their cost the reality of passing these powers to Westminster.

Wake up, Scotland!

P Davidson
Falkirk

ONCE again Mark Twain had it right: it is much easier to deceive people than it is to convince them they have been deceived. Those from the north-east must be the easiest, or did a bit of greed get in the way?

John McLoughlin
Dunfermline